holding that when sitting in diversity, the federal courts “apply the substantive law of the forum [and when] the application of that law is not clear, ... [they] must forecast the position the supreme court of the forum would take on the issue”
How later courts described this case
- holding that when sitting in diversity, the federal courts “apply the substantive law of the forum [and when] the application of that law is not clear, ... [they] must forecast the position the supreme court of the forum would take on the issue”
- holding that “[w]e 10 generally defer to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to 11 be afforded an applicant’s documentary evidence” and 12 upholding BIA’s decision not to credit letter from 13 applicant’s spouse
- holding that when opposing summary judgment motion, "plaintiff . . . must point to admissible evidence that would be sufficient to show all elements of a prima facie case under applicable substantive law"
- rejecting the employee’s claim that “Pennsylvania’s public policy exception to the at-will doctrine extends to cases in which an employee ‘reasonably believes’ that his employer has requested him to perform an unlawful act and is discharged for objecting to the proposal be believes is unlawful”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated in part, on other grounds by United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019)
9 F.3d 335, 346 (11th Cir. 2018), abrogated in part on other grounds by Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 2324, 2336
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Dec. 22, 1993.
Present SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.